*DAMN R6 Forum

Now that the war in Iraq is more or less over, stories of Saddam's brutality are starting to come out. To those who still question why we fight, this is why.

This link (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&en=ea21e8c88feae21c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) goes to an article written by a Chief News Executive at CNN and contains serveral stories the author was personally involved in that show the disgusting evil that was Saddam's Regime.

More stories like these are sure to surface in the weeks and months to come.

Interesting article,
I'm curious what the reactions of the Anti-War Protestors are after seeing the Iraqi people cheer on our Troops in Bagdad.

My god...that's absolutely sickening...

Jeb..they'd still be hard headed assholes protesting a lost cause.

Here's an article about how (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6230427%5E26277,00.html) you fight.

There's going to be prejudice in any war kami. Also understand that most of our soldiers are fresh out of high school and haven't had a proper "education" to the world. Also understand that they're putting their life on the line for something they may not be concerned about, and that the world seems pretty unappreciative of. You also can't take chances in a situation like this.

Besides...the Brits would find any reason to dog on our troops. I'm sure that was the feeling of at most 15% of the marines there. They forgot to report the good things that our troops are doing.

Py that's kind of the point, most of your soldiers are fresh out of high school (where they obviously didn't learn anything as you said). The Brits aren't putting their lives on the line? They're not concerned about (what the hell are you doing over there man)?
Why would they find any reason to dog on your troops? Could you elaborate that? Ok, so what good things are your troops doing, besides for getting statues and pictures of Saddam down (talking post-Saddam here). Bottom line, why wouldn't the Brits be entitled to comment on the American troops' ways of working?

Like pyrex said, a lot of the soldiers don't care about the morals of the war, they just want to get home safely. I know many of the younger soldiers are there to get money to go to college. Many of the older soldiers are either career soldiers, or are college educated and were called up for this conflict. After various car bombings at security checkpoints, and your job was to check those cars i'm sure your nerves would be on edge.

Jeb, to answer your question I'm happy that the Iraqis are happy. I'm glad they finally have freedom and don't have to live under fear for Saddam. However, anti-war protesters had a lot of reasons for protesting this war and as many of us on the anti-war side believe, all along the liberation of the Iraqi people is just a sideshow, a human event to distract the citizenry and the media for the Bush administration's real reasons for war. Note that the conflict is far from over and that many of our worst suspicions about the war have yet to be confirmed or dispelled. The reason I fight this war is because it is part of a foreign policy philosophy espoused by neoconservatives whose only purpose is maximizing the power of the US within the world. The entire Bush administration is part of the PNAC, or Project for a New American Century. Their liberation of the Iraqi people is part of their strategy for gaining a valuable foothold in the Middle East that they believe will be necessary for the inevitable power struggle conflict with China. So, as an anti-war protester I'm glad that the conflict has had some positive effects, but I still oppose the Bush Doctrine and the future application of it. The US still has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and I know that the liberation of Iraq was not the primary reason for the Iraq War.

So instead of insulting my views on foreign policy, maybe you two should go learn something about it. I think a lot of people here have a lot to learn and it shows.

Py, you have great misunderstanding about the anti-war movement it would seem.

My stance against the war isn't saying I disagree that Saddam has done horrible things, I have no doubt he has.  No amount of horrors will change my mind because I consider it known that he has done them.

My stance against war isn't saying he doesn't have WMD...I think he probably does although it hasn't really been proven yet.   If they find WMD it wouldn't change my mind because I accepted that he might.

For me, war is justified only in three cases.  UN mandate, regional request, meaning the people of Iraq and surrounding areas specifically ask for help in a military situation, and direct and obvious threat to the US (or an attack on the US).  The war in Iraq meets none of these standards and so I don't see it as justified.  

Yes, Saddam did deserve to be overthrown, but I don't think the US should have done so until the UN, Arab countries, or Iraqis (through starting a revolution and asking for our assistance) specifically asked for it or until Iraq attacked us or gave any sign that they were a threat to us.  If these minimum standards for justifying wars isn't held then it means wars can be fought with little reason.

So violating multiple UN resolutions that explicitly call for action in case of a lack of compliance is not a minimum standard? Since a UN resolution obviously doesn't mean shit, how can you put any faith in any potential support for war that the UN could have?

Kami, the reason the US troops are so careful at the checkpoints has been made painfuly obvious in recent days. There have been a number of suicide bombers who have attacked these checkpoints. I just heard a report about US troops finding an Iraqi suicide bomb making factory where they discovered that the bombers were putting explosives in children's toys, including stuffed animals.

If you want to go home alive, you don't take chances. Even if that mother wasn't a suicide bomber, how hard is it to believe that some twisted individual didn't give a stuffed animal, with an explosive concealed inside it, to one of her kids and was waiting to detonate it when they got close to the checkpoint. Yes, it's sad that our people have to be so scared of a bunch of women and kids but that's the way it is -- that is reality.

I found that article to be horribly biased against americans by the way, I would say that's just as bad as anything Fox News says. In particular when they're talking about american croud-control tactics as opposed to UK tactics. It's not at all demeaning to make people sit down on the ground to recieve their food, nope, not at all...

It is the UN, you either take it all or leave it all.  If you take it, you don't fight unless they ok it.  If you leave it you can't use UN resolutions as justification and thus it reverts only to my other two justifications for war.

I found that article about the Americans heavy handedness pretty amusing. Sounds pretty terrible that they would actually yell at someone. Sheesh, you'd think they could have asked nicely for someone who may have a bomb in their car to get out. What meanies. Is this war or Disneyland? Give me a fuckin' break, lame. Brits must not yell?

This is how a UK soldier is trained to handle the same situation:

<british accent>Pardon me suicide bomber, old chap, might you step from the vehicle so we may discuss the propostion that you may blow up my squad and me, over tea perhaps?</british accent>

bio

Bondo, the fact that you can still say the war wasn't justified in iraq after 1) it is very likely they have WMDs with bad intentions 2) they horribly abuse human rights and 3) they have violated  NUMEROUS UN resolutions and treaties baffles me. You do know the UN was going to sit on this forever, even with the knowledge of what was going on in iraq? And if something great comes out of this, they're going to try and take the credit for it... the UN really is crap today. It means nothing to anyone anymore, it is obsolete and ineffective, and desperately needs reform.

Also, you say war is only justified by regional request.
Do you honestly expect the Iraqi people to sit down and write a letter to president bush saying please cause a war in our country, we need it?! Plus, i would consider the numerous defectors we've had come to us to be asking for action, wouldn't you? Or else.. why would they be telling at risk of their heads?

you also said we should have only helped them once they started their own revolution.
wow, lets have more people die in a bloody, disorganized revolt! sounds like a plan??

anyway, did you guys hear about this CNN crap? it's disgusting. Politics..

(please excuse my ramblings)

Take the article as you like, I'm not going to bother.

I live in Michigan, USA and I was always very opposed to the war since last december even though the war has been profitable for me. Me and 9 friends made a betting pool last december on which month the war would start, and I won $50. To get back on track I dont know how many of you have been listening to NPR last week. A story about the humanitarian aid efforts astounded me. Medics came into baghdad with 2 tons of medical supplies, and they asked the local doctors what kind of medicine they needed or wanted, and anything they didnt take would be shipped to more northern cities. The doctors replied "We want honey". The medics didnt have any honey and were thoughroly confused until a local intrepreter informed them that people in Iraq believe that honey will cure kidney inflammations. The people of Iraq have never seen adequate or modern medical care. Even with all the looting that this war has created, and some armed forces brutality, I think it would all be worth it if we could provide the tens of millions of people in Iraq with long-term real medical care.
Edited for Spelling

Yeah, we are willing to pay for the medical care of the Iraqis but find it outrageous that we'd pay for medical care of Americans.  The Republicans would generally like to reduce or eliminate Medicare and Medicaid to let the poor and elderly join the less poor as people getting shoddy medical care.

Bondo that's rediculous. The medical care that any citizen recieves in the United States is ten-thousandfold better than those that the Iraqis get. How would you like to recieve a treatment like "Iraqi Cactus Needle Acupuncture
" for appendicitus or heart attack?

I wasn't talking about the medical treatment available before...I'm talking about the medical treatment the US will be funding/providing to the Iraqi people.  As in the medical treatment payed for instead of paying for medical treatment of Americans.

Unless you have a life threatening problem, you don't get care without some form of payment or insurance.  If you do have a life threatening problem they get you stable and then send you packing if you can't pay for futher treatment.

actually, acupuncture has been found to be an effective reedy for many common illnesses. (I'm not thinking cancer or aids here, more along the lines of headaches and the like, although i don't know if it works for certain infections and inflammations)  eastern medicine has discovered many cures that have been regarded as preposterous by modern western medicine until recent years, what's to say that honey isn't part of some traditional remedy that works?


living in the western world has indoctrinated us into the culture of the pill. i.e. if it doesn't come in a little pill that can be bought at a pharmacy, it cant possibly work. remember, aspirin was first discovered in willow bark. who's to say that dandelions cant cure cancer?

That is just too disturbing.

I don't want my eyes. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/wallbash.gif)

What the fuck is this Mauti?? I mean seriously, people tell me Europe doesn't have a serious problem with alcoholism but you've got me wondering...

Okay, let me see if I've got you line of thought here, however strange it may be. You want to protest Greed by embracing pedophilia?

I thought we were supposed to turn to Mauti for the final say in what we should mod and what we shouldn't, but WHAT THE FUCKING HELL?!?!

That's not pleasant to look at, but i wouldn't exactly say it's pedophilic. It's a baby, and baby nudity is generally accepted by society.

mauti i bet in the us they would send u to a therapy after posting this pic. didnt they sue the little kid who tried to help his sister pee?

Don't be so prudish. Obviously you don't get my message. - I just was too tired to argue why this war was started and that this war has only very less to do with Sadaam. But here is the explanation of my post:

The baby grew up and is now an adult playing with power, money and weapons... The fascination never ends!

lol unbelievable...

Hehe, I understood what it meant, but I'm still disturbed.

Haha, that's just hilarious. Mauti, did you fix that pic yourself (I mean with the animation and text)? Frankly I don't see the connection to power very clearly.

Alaric, why do you connect it to Europe? You don't think anyone in the US could come up with the same thing? Also, how is that pedophilia?

I think Mauti was trying to say that the power grubbing tactics of international relations are infantile, and that instead of playing with their tiny penises they are now playing with expensive weapons.

***sighs***

I get really irritated with the whole "holier-than-thou" spiel our freinds in germany and austria are doing on the rest of the world and the US in particular. Yes, europe (and those two countries in particular) have seen a lot of wars, but that doesnt mean that everytime a problem arisies, we can categorically reject the use of force. look at how public opinion in germany was against intervening in kosovo or bosnia, when the rest of world agreed that somthing needed to be done. now think of what fmr yugoslavia would look like if it hadent been for the 98 bombing campaign. i think a similar case can be made for iraq in 2 years time, as long as the administraton does a decent job in putting the country back together.

Kami, I connect it to Europe because it's funny. I connect it to pedophilia because it's funny. Not because I seriously mean either of those statements. It was meant to be a humorous post, but looking back vocal inflection might be difficult to catch when you're reading.

So, in the interest of Trans-Atlantic co-operation and reconciliation, I'd like to make it clear that my post was just a couple of friendly jabs at Mauti, NOT personal attacks on him, Europe, Europeans, or pedophiles. ;D

Abe, a hell of a lot more countries/populations are against this war than just Germany, Austria, or even Europe.

Look at former Yugoslavia now.  You're telling me a bombing campaign improved its appearance??!

Anyway, I don't really see how that's relevant, since the force used there was approved by the UN.  

Also, the Germans and Austrians do have much war experience and are justified in saying that it's not a good idea.  Good point.  Plus, they're right.  So how is that an arrogant approach?  It's so rare that abstaining from violence will cause problems.

Bondo: yes a lot of other countries opposed the war, but in germany it wasnt even a question of a UN mandate or not, they rejected force against iraq categorically. besides, i wasnt talking about other countries in the world, i was talking about germany and austria. and yes, public opinion in those countries is more anti-war than elsewhere.

loudnotes: heres what the bombing improved in fmr yugoslavia: there are no more mass graves being filled with men over 18, whose only crime was being muslim or croatian. ethnic violence has been kept under control since NATO and UN peacekeepers are there, so yes, it did improve things somewhat. stopping a genocide does usually improve the appearance of a country, yes.


ummmm........NO. the kosovo and bosnia interventions were NATO operations that were not explicitly authorized by the UN security council, because Russia (and china, mb, im not sure) sat on its veto to protect their serb homeboys. only afterwards did the UN pass a resolution saying that the action was justified, mostly to save face.

btw, loudnotes: i am german and the lesson that i draw from hitler and ww2 is that force is somtimes appropriate to stop an even bigger conflict from happening. if the UK and france had reacted to hilters invasion of the rhineland, hitler would have been overthrown and ww2 would have been averted. a lot of ppl seem to think it means that war is wrong in all circumstances. seems a little simplistic to me......

I got this from the Infiltration (mod for UT) forums, don't know if it's true, think it is though. Anyway it's hilarious :D


Experts with newscaster on CNN 24th March. 3 American  experts including a former 2-star general, 1 ex SAS and the network's anchor:

Footage of Iraqis giving themselves up.

Anchor: We have no verification as of yet if they are British or Americantroops taking these POW's

American 1: Only Americans wear boots like that, they're American

American 2: I agree, and they appear to have American camouflage jackets.

The General: I'm not so sure, there's not enough up-close detail to tell 100%, we'd need some close images to tell make of boots and jackets and maybe the shape of their Kevlar headgear.

Ex SAS man: Call yourselves experts? Since when did US forces use an SA80 as a standard issue rifle? Their DPM's can be bought as can boots so you're chasing rainbows if you want to identify them from their clothes.

Anchor: I think you're right.

Ex SAS man: ! Course I'm bloody right. Any one with half a brain and basic military training worth their salt should be able to identify a British soldier by his rifle. Not to mention the fact they're covering all points properly, not shouting "woo yeah" randomly, and haven't raised a flag in direct contravention with orders.

At this point 1 of the Americans walks off stage tearing his mic off, and the anchor says "I think we can safely say the soldiers on your screen are British. Now for these messages".

Hehe, that is classic.

I disagree with the UK going along with the US, but the Brits still rule.  Blair despite his support for the war is still respectable, you can tell he really hates having to work with Bush on these issues that he supports because Bush makes things sound so bad by changing his arguments every five minutes.

Haha, amen Bondo. I actually like Blair, seems like a good guy.

I liked Blair until he started his quest to be Winston Churchill part II. But I can always forgive him for that quirky British accent. Seriously, I will pay British people to talk, their accents rock. The only accent Americans are really known for is the Southern accent and I think we all know how annoying and nasal that is. The British accent on the other hand is the very sound of sophistication. And abe is right, collective security failed in the instance of Bosnia/Hergozovia because Russia sat on their hands like douche bags.

Heh, we are douchebags. However it is mostly because Serbia is Russia's Israel.